The nature of bigotry

I have to say I’ve been appalled by the fact that more than a trivial number of people (including commenters here – but also on media sites) have actually defended or agreed with what Richard Prosser said regarding banning anyone who is or looks like a Muslim from flying.

To be blunt, they are bigots. You can not defend what he said and not be a bigot. It really is as simple as that.

There is nothing bigoted about having a negative view of the Islamic religion – or in fact any religion. I have negatives views about several religions. But it is bigotry when you treat someone as a sub-human purely because they are a member of a religion – or worse “look like” someone who is a member of a religion.

Take the Mormon religion. I think it is a wacky religion, and Joseph Smith was an obvious con artist. However one of my friends is Mormon, and in fact was the local Bishop for a while. A lovely guy, and I would never treat him differently based on the fact he is Mormon. That is just a part of who he is. You treat people as individuals, not just as a member of a race, a religion, a gender, a sexual orientation etc.

The same goes from Scientology. I think it is a crackpot money making scheme. But do I think scientologists should be discriminated against? No.

Now when it comes to Islam, I am someone who has written at length about the flaws in this religion. It has a high proportion of extremists compared to other religions. It has no ability to modernise, and no central authority (the two are linked). There are huge problems in Europe with the lack of integration of some Muslim immigrants and many (not most) Islamic religious leaders do not denounce terrorism or even support it. These are all valid views to have and hold on the religion.

But when you get into bigotry is when you declare that because someone is a member of that religion, that have less rights than someone else and that being a member of that religion is more important than any other characteristics that they have.

This is the sort of views that led to the Jewish Holocaust. Because some Jews were unpopular for various reasons, it was decided all Jews were bad and must be wiped out.

Just as we have differing levels of piety and commitment amongst (say) Catholics, it is the same of course amongst Muslims. Some Catholics are absolutely devout and go to church every week, and their religion is a major defining part of their lives. but also we all know many Catholics who only go to church for Easter and Christmas, and their religious commitment is almost as much cultural as anything.

Well that also applies to Muslims (God forbid that I even have to spell this out). While your religious beliefs are a choice, the reality is that if you grow up in a Muslim family or community, you’re probably going to be Muslim. It is not that big a part of your life – it is just who you are – just like the kids who grow up in Catholic families are Catholics – even if they miss weekly confession. And bigots are unable to differentiate between extreme Islamists and other Muslims.

Some bigots claim there is no such thing as a non-extreme Muslim. Bullshit. This is the sort of view such as there are no Maori who are not crooks or on the dole. I find inevitably it comes from those with very sheltered closeted lives and non-diverse friends.

I’m lucky. I have travelled the world. I’ve been involved in international meetings in the political and Internet spheres where you meet and work with people from around the world. This includes Iranian Internet engineers (who are of course Muslim), the Secretary-General of the Arab Youth League (a young Syrian who was a lot of fun), Internet policy people from Malaysia (who happen to be Muslim) and so on. It is hard to be bigoted when you deal with real people, rather than stereotypes. I think of those people I know when I recall what Richard Prosser wrote, and how denigrating it is of them.

How would you feel to have someone (let alone an MP) declare you should not be allowed to fly, and all the implications that you are a sub-human who can’t be trusted. And then have others agreeing with him?

We can and should debate the excesses of Islam, terrorism, and the like. But you do it in a way that doesn’t treat individuals as shit.

And don’t even get me started about calling people wogs and saying that even anyone who looks Muslim should be banned from flying. That is not even subtle code for fuck off if you are not white like me.

One can debate issues such as the fact Maori crime rate is higher than non-Maori, without denigrating Maori. One can also debate issues such as rape, without denigrating all men as potential rapists.

At the end of the day we should treat people as individuals. Anyone who proposes any sort of oppressive policy or law based on a group characteristic is bigoted – consciously or unconsciously. It was wrong for FDR to intern Japanese-Americans in the 1940s for example.

And finally have some common decency. If you have bigoted thoughts, keep them to yourselves. try and have at least a modicum of empathy and decency and think about the impact on others if you rush into print, or online, and say “Oh yeah I think Muslims should be banned from traveling”. Think about the awful impact such prejudice and hatred has on those whom would be impacted by your words. Just think.

Related Stories

Comments (204)

Bob R

***Richard Prosser said regarding banning anyone who is or looks like a Muslim from flying.***

Banning is ridiculous, but the issue of security profiling seems legitimate based on statistical likilihood of risk?

Another example is men on Air NZ & some other airlines are moved if they are sitting next to an unnaccompanied minor. Of course no one thinks all men are child abusers but the risk is far higher so the policy applies to all men (happy to be corrected if this is no longer the case).

One of the strengths of the tolerance and diversity of New Zealand is the often seamless integration in our society of people with different religious and non-religious beliefs, connections and views.

In the main we can live our lives here with little religious prejudice.

It’s a pity that those who do make a noise about religious differences are those who are the least tolerant of differences, while most people just quietly get on living together accepting diversity as normal.

AG

nasska

DPF

The bigotry expressed here & elsewhere is not totally petty…..rather it is a reaction by those who have good cause to fear death or injury at the hands of a religious group whose leaders frequently espouse violence & death to the infidel. Each instance of Islamic “martyrdom” cements the aversion to sitting alongside someone reading the Koran.

What you interpret as “bigotry” in many cases is the simple gut reaction of everyday humans to a risk to their lives & limbs. If those of the Muslim faith were a little less ready to reach for the Semtex the hostility would vanish & quickly.

barry

DPF – you are a little too easily upset – maybe you are getting the “I want to be insulted” syndrome.

1. I am fully entitled to be a bigot if I want to. I dont like the muslim life style and they way they regard non muslims.
I also dont like a lot of the maori culture – I think the Haka is the root of violence in their society. If that also comes under the bigot label then so be it.
I think the haka should be banned and I think there is very good reason for profiling based on race and ethnicity when it comes to air transport safety. After all the only problems that air transport has had has (I think) exclusively come from the muslim side of life – going back to and incluing the ’72 olympic killings. (I think it was 1972)

2. the Mormons and Scientoligosts (as wonky as they are) dont go around killing people simply because they arent mormons or scientologists. Mormon children are excellent to teach at school, they behave themselves and take their job of learning seriously.

3. As Bob R points out – theres plenty of bigotry in day to day life.

Bigotry is (I think) an IRRATIONAL belief. Theres nothing irrational about being wary of muslims on flights.

The current state of affairs has arisen because the authorities decided that everyone should bear the penalties of a few – thus airport security and their x-ray machines etc.
This is like the UK where EVERYONE is going to be sent a cervical smear test reminder – females AND MALES – all in the crazy belief that everyone has to be treated the same.

The bigotry expressed here & elsewhere is not totally petty…..rather it is a reaction by those who have good cause to fear death or injury at the hands of a religious group whose leaders frequently espouse violence & death to the infidel.

Who in New Zealand has “good cause to fear death or injury at the hands of a religious group”?

I fear far more what might happen of the intolerant bigots stir up enough hatred to incite some nutter or nutters into racial, cultural or religious targeted violence.

James Butler

What you interpret as “bigotry” in many cases is the simple gut reaction of everyday humans to a risk to their lives & limbs.

Being a “gut reaction” doesn’t mean it’s not bigotry. A bigot is almost by definition someone whose gut reactions are bigoted, and who lets them go unexamined. The ability to recognise our gut reactions and think rationally about whether or not they are warranted and reasonable is one of the things that makes us human.

xy

gracious

Best post I have read on here! Next thing we know all people named “barry” will be banned from airlines, purely because they are named “barry”. I always think if you know you are being offensive and continue to be offensive, and you are in a public role, its time to step down. We may of course lose half our politicians….

It’s been pretty knarly and dispiriting on previous Prosser threads. From experience it’s very difficult if not impossible to get through to many of the bigots, they have narrow cemented views.

But it’s necessary to stand up and speak up to confront them, otherwise they think they are the majority view and the only view that holds any weight. Some have said they think their views are shared by most. They’re not, and it’s important to make that clear to them. That needs multiple voices.

I acknowledge concerns and fears as per nasska – we all have some. But they are not helped by stoking and snowballing the bigotry – that is more likely to end in grief.

Bob R

Just further to the profiling issue, the Israel example is an interesting case study. This site summarises the arguments for & against, noting in terms of Israel’s approach:

“The Israeli airline El Al has a policy of singling out young Arabs for extensive search procedures, but is quick to point out that, in spite of ongoing war in the Middle East, it has not had a hijacking in over thirty years.”

Scott

DPF – I so disagree with you on so many levels. For a start Islam remains an existential threat to Western civilisation. Over in Europe in places like France there are no-go zones where the police will not go, because they are ruled by Moslems. In Britain there have been calls to recognise sharia law as part of the law of the land. The simple fact of the matter is that Moslems do not integrate into western countries. There is no separation between church and state in Islam. Given the high fertility and consequent population growth in the Moslem community and the incredibly low fertility amongst liberal western women it is only a matter of time if those population trends continue before Islam takes over. And they do want to take over. Islam divides the world into 2 houses – the house of Islam and the house of war.
So many of us see Islam as an enemy. It cannot be appeased or compromised with, it can only be resisted.

Now with regard to our treatment of individual Moslems, sure, we want to be treating them with dignity and respect, the same as anybody else. However with regard to public policy there is ample evidence for concerns about Moslems flying in airliners. Mr Prosser is surely only reflecting that view. What annoys many of us is that airport security treats everybody the same. So there is an invasive search of Betty Smith, a 75-year-old Episcopalian from Idaho. That’s just nuts! I remember seeing a video last year where they even patted down a little 4-year-old girl.

On the other hand if somebody is from Yemen called Mohammed Muhamed, then I think they should be expecting a a lot more airport security their way. That’s not bigotry, that just makes sense.

I appreciate that what Mr Prosser said was probably over the top. He should refrain from being a columnist while being an MP. However many of us can understand where his frustration comes from. We bend over backwards to appease Moslems. In my view many liberals like yourself have a rose tinted view of human nature that does not correspond with reality.

Craig Ranapia

Banning is ridiculous, but the issue of security profiling seems legitimate based on statistical likilihood of risk?

As I’ve said more than once, if you want to crunch the numbers on terrorist fatalities in London, Heathrow security should be profiling male citizens of the Republic of Ireland and other “Catholic nations”. After all, the IRA was perpetrating terrorist outrages on British soil when Bin Laden was still in nappies, and somehow over a billion Catholics (including five million law-abiding British citizens) aren’t expected to share collective no-fly listed blood guilt for that fuckery.

BeaB

Yeah yeah.
But why do we have to give “Muslims particularly” more equality, freedoms etc than anyone else?
Because that’s what they voted unanimously for in Parliament yesterday. Sends a shiver along my female spine.

And, as a modern woman and former teacher, I may be bigoted in your terms but I cannot find any justification at all for genital mutilation of children (girls and boys), shrouding women in black bags with slits for eyeholes, chopping off hands, stoning, declaring fatwahs and jihads, banning girls from activities like swimming – the list goes on and they are all aspects of Islam. I don’t like a lot about other religions too but again, as a woman, I have a legitimate fear that, one day, we might be subjected to some of this. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury championed Sharia law for gods sake.

We in the West have much to fear from radical Islam. It will dominate world politics for decades to come. I really look forward to hearing, loud and clear, the voice of liberal, modern Islam and perhaps Prosser may have helped to encourage them to speak up.

He’s a knob but no fool and look at the publicity, day after day, for NZ First and Winnie.

Bob R

***We will see this matter of Muslims in Europe come to a head within our lifetime. There will be some form of ethnic cleansing and maybe war in those countries.***

@ RRM,

Maybe. There are certainly examples to suggest that old conflicts from the Middle East are fueling a rise in anti-semitic violence.

“But as in many other cities across Europe, a rapidly growing Muslim population living in segregated conditions that seem to breed alienation has mixed toxically with the anger directed at Israeli policies and actions by those Muslims — and by many non-Muslims — to all but transform the lives of local Jews. Like many of their counterparts in other European cities, the Jews of Malmo report being subjected increasingly to threats, intimidation and actual violence as stand-ins for Israel.”

Ross Miller

mikemikemikemike

Where was a similar rant at Melissa Lee’s stance about Sth Akl’ders in Mt Albert or John Bank’s during his campaign for mayor. I reiterate – this oozes self-interest. You were much kinder then and all this ranting is just politically biased bullshit.

As I’ve said more than once, if you want to crunch the numbers on terrorist fatalities in London, Heathrow security should be profiling male citizens of the Republic of Ireland and other “Catholic nations”.

Yes, but crunch those same numbers on terrorist fatalities caused by people happy to blow themselves to bits at the same time, you come out with an answer of 100% Islamic. Add to that the very very low level of integration of Muslims in the UK and you’ve got a perfect recipe for hightened animosity towards the religion of “peace”.

I thought we’d done quite well initially with the response to Prosser’s column, but then the professionally offended on behalf of others got their momentum going and that, naturally, swung a heap of support in behind him. Just point, laugh and ridicule the like of Prosser and they’ll go away much quicker.

tropicana

Good post, but…

It’s naive of us to be so perfect. This is simply because our standards are not met by the standards of the other side. Muslims do not look back at us in the same way that you demand that all of us look at them. Same with Maori. Same with certain Baptists. Same with the gay population. Same even with modern youth attitudes to the elderly. You could even apply it to the New Zealand socio-economic strata.

Sometimes it’s just a little hard to tell myself that I have to love someone who is part of a set of people who despise my being a moderately successful WASP.

Chuck Bird

David are you saying it is okay to criticize people who support profiling potential terrorists to protect airline passengers or has serious concerns about Western countries allowing the percentage of those of Islam religion to continue to increase and call them bigots as liberals do call people who disagree with them?

[DPF: Did you not read a single word I said? This is not about profiling. This is about blanket bans based on a group characteristic]

@BeaB
But why do we have to give “Muslims particularly” more equality, freedoms etc than anyone else?
Because that’s what they voted unanimously for in Parliament yesterday.

I didn’t see a vote anything like that in parliament. There was a unanimous vote, but quite different to what you describe:

Green co-leader Russel Norman moved a motion without debate noting that Parliament affirm that all New Zealanders regardless of race or religion should be treated the same before the law and in society. It was passed unanimously.

eszett

Great post, David. And I concur with a lot that you say.

However this par I disagree with.

And finally have some common decency. If you have bigoted thoughts, keep them to yourselves. try and have at least a modicum of empathy and decency and think about the impact on others if you rush into print, or online, and say “Oh yeah I think Muslims should be banned from traveling”. Think about the awful impact such prejudice and hatred has on those whom would be impacted by your words. Just think.

No matter how idiotic, they should be allowed to speak their minds.
Only when out in the open can such stupidity be confronted with reason and more aptly with ridicule.

It’s far more dangerous to be allowed to fester behind closed doors and in dark corners. As you always say, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Green co-leader Russel Norman moved a motion without debate noting that Parliament affirm that all New Zealanders regardless of race or religion should be treated the same before the law and in society. It was passed unanimously.

howdarethey

Barry

Bigotry is not necessarily irrational. During WW2, members of Germany’s Nazi Party were targeted for at least imprisonment, possibly death, by the Allies. We now know that some Nazi Party members were in some way coerced to join the party, even though this coercion might have simply been the result of socially-exerted pressure to join from family and friends.

Whatever the reason, the Nazi Party was such a clear threat to the Allied Nations that membership of it would result in sanctions, ie imprisonment or death. To have done anything less would not have been in our interests. During times of war, harsh sanctions to a class of people (here, Nazies) are to be admired, since evil is apparent.

I defend your right to be a bigot, but you display many disturbing character traits in your blog. I think you need to investigate whether your character embraces higher than normal degrees of narcissism and lack of empathy for others. Your comments on the haka are particularly interesting in this regard.

It might be your opinions reflect some sort of fear of others. If so, you might want to work on this, nobody should go through life without regarding the ways of others as a source of fascination.

Incidentally, the 1972 Munich incident presumably did lead to increases in security of the airlines, but its biggest longterm effect seems to have been to galvanise the Israeli leadership to escalate its war against the PLO. This included a decision by the Israeli leadership to accept collateral damage in any attacks, ie the death of innocents in the pursuit of criminals.

moaningmoa

I’d rather sit next to a Muslim on an aircraft, than the creche end of the cabin with screaming children for 12 hrs.

I’m more concerned with who’s flying the damned thing. There are quite a few airlines based in predominantly muslim countries that are happy for their pilots to fast during ramadan. And that’s a tricky business, given the fast is from the sunrise to sundown. I know for a fact that Emirates do not allow their pilots to fast.

tropicana

davidp

I’ve been looking at a potential Labour-Greens-NZ First-Mana coalition. The Greens don’t like Chinese people. NZ First don’t like any Asians, and any Muslims. Hone doesn’t like Pakeha. Hone’s offsider Minto doesn’t like Jews. And at least one Labour MP thinks gay people should be stoned to death.

So who wouldn’t suffer bigotry if there is a left wing coalition in 2014? I think we’re limited to straight Maori and Pacific Islanders, straight non-Muslim dark-skinned Africans, straight native-Americans, straight non-Muslim dark-skinned Americans and Europeans provided they’re not immigrants from Asia, and I think that’s about it. It’ll be a coalition of intolerance.

AJChesswas

unpcnzcougar

What Prosser said is so wrong on so many levels and an embarrassment to us internationally. I don’t like organised religion on any level but I respect people’s rights to follow certain religions. When I have been in the Middle East or Europe I obey cultural/religious etiquette by covering my shoulders etc.

The extremists are normally anti U.S. The U.S. does profile and have strict customs requirements. And they should. We however in my opinion are never going to be targets by any fundamentalist group, as quite simply the collateral damage wouldn’t register. You are perfectly safe flying Air NZ. While it may sound neurotic when we need to travel other airlines we choose an airline from a country that are Muslims. I know chances are I am more likely to die in another way but I personally feel that U.S. and some European carriers are going to be more likely targets for terrorists.

What frustrates the hell out of me is why we tolerate Hone’s outbursts. He too is an embarrassment to us nationally and internationally.

radvad

There are two aspects of this controversy that have not been raised.

First, anyone else noticed the difference in the amount of foot stamping aimed at Prosser compared to when that Muslim MP said that gays should be stoned? Given the choice between being banned from flying and stoning, I think I would go with the former, yet Choudrary’s bigotry almost passed unnoticed. Sadly it isnot hard to work out why that is.

Second, why is anyone surprised about Prosser’s bigotry. I read an Investigate mag years ago and he was saying the same things then. NZ First must have known this when they put together their list and maybe that was even why he was ranked as high as he was. I am sure there is a motherlode of controversial material there if anyone wants to do some basic research.

Stuart

I disagree with Prosser’s method, banning those who look the part is wrong (although I have no problem with profiling and more targeted airport security etc). But I understand his sentiment.

Most Muslims are nice people, but far too many tolerate the hard-liners. They may speak out sometimes against terrorist attacks, but I never hear of them speaking out against the oppression of women and the general problems with Islam.

I don’t think anyone can disagree that there is a piece of Islam that is pure evil (sharia law, genital mutilation, jihad etc), and most Muslims do not agree with those parts, but they do not fight it, not enough. That is why I am happy to oppose all of Islam, because Muslims are not willing to oppose the core, because Muslims tolerate the core, we must fight it.

Craig

GraemeB

I think that Richard Prosser was deliberate and calculating in his comments about Muslims to garner support for the New Zealand First party. He knew it would bring attention in the same way Winston’s anti Asian campaign worked to help boost his minority party. Sadly it seems to be working. It will be interesting to see the next polls.

graham

Regarding BeaB’s comment that we are giving Muslims more equality, freedoms etc than anyone else.

The pedant in me says it’s a bit difficult to give one person “more equality” than someone else. 🙂

But more freedoms. Hmm. One case I remember was the court case in 2004 where the defence objected to two Muslim women wearing the burqa whilst giving evidence as Crown witnesses. The judge called for submissions on the matter and ultimately decided to allow screens to be used to ensure that only the judge, counsel and female court staff were able to observe the witness’ face. I wonder if anybody else would get away with that?

Is that “religious tolerance and understanding”, or is it altering New Zealand’s court systems to accommodate immigrants?

I don’t think anyone can disagree that there is a piece of Christianity that is pure evil (there’s plenty in the Old Testament etc), and most Christians do not agree with those parts, but they do not fight it, not enough. That is why I am happy to oppose all of Christianity, because Christians are not willing to oppose the core, because Christians tolerate the core, we must fight it.

You could also replace Christian with Catholic and make a case, especially if you don’t like the evil of child abuse.

Now I don’t agree with the edited statement here, I have done it to make a point.

It comes back to the same problem that started the Prosser issue – should all who belong to a religion be blamed and targeted due to the evil actions of some?

Bob R

***As I’ve said more than once, if you want to crunch the numbers on terrorist fatalities in London, Heathrow security should be profiling male citizens of the Republic of Ireland…***

@ Craig Ranapia

If that’s the case then that should be a factor in profiling. As economist Bryan Caplan notes, everyone uses statistical discrimination because it saves time and tends to work. Where the line is drawn is the tricky issue.

“No matter what they say, everyone engages in statistical discrimination. (See also here). Judging everyone as an individual is expensive, and relying on statistical generalizations is a cheap and effective alternative. You don’t clutch your purse when you see a bunch of little old ladies approaching on a deserted street. You don’t offer a policeman a joint. You don’t hire a guy with a mohawk as a receptionist at a law firm – even if he promises to get a hair cut. Why not? Because on average, little old ladies don’t commit violent crimes, policemen arrest people for possession of marijuana, and guys with mohawks have trouble with authority.

Of course, the inevitable existence of some statistical discrimination doesn’t make the practice immune to criticism. You can grant that it’s OK to some degree, but – even if the law is silent – still limited by ethics and/or etiquette. But precisely what limitations do you think are justified, and why?”

“One often hears of the great danger of irrational discrimination based on false ideas like racism. But there is also a serious danger in the refusal to acknowledge the inferential and moral legitimacy of instances of rational discrimination. If instances of rational discrimination are falsely understood to be manifestations of bigotry and hatred, then this can only create and sustain acrimony and hostility between groups of people, a trend which has manifested itself in a repressive system of coercive planning known as antidiscrimination law.”

Viking2

I didn’t see a vote anything like that in parliament. There was a unanimous vote, but quite different to what you describe:

Green co-leader Russel Norman moved a motion without debate noting that Parliament affirm that all New Zealanders regardless of race or religion should be treated the same before the law and in society. It was passed unanimously.

If you are referring to that you have misunderstood it or are grossly misreprenting it.
——————–
Trouble is that motion affirms something which doesn’t exist in NZ presently.

So are we about to see all our laws changed to reflect this position i.e. that everyone is equal and should be treated so. Because if they are then that will be the greatest change ever. The TOW will be dead and so will so many other issues. Thankful for that.

It also has been ACT policy for years and years.
Can’t see the Nats. doing this then.

Kea

And finally have some common decency. If you have bigoted thoughts, keep them to yourselves. try and have at least a modicum of empathy and decency and think about the impact on others if you rush into print, or online, and say “Oh yeah I think Muslims should be banned from traveling”. Think about the awful impact such prejudice and hatred has on those whom would be impacted by your words. Just think.

I agree with the general thrust of David’s article, but I disagree with that conclusion.

People should express whatever they think. Shutting down freedom of expression will not change the thinking behind it. In order to make real changes (to thinking), views need to be presented openly and engaged.

It has to be said that Muslims can hardly take the moral high-ground on this, given the many well publicised intemperate comments made by followers of that faith. I am well aware that most Muslims do not share such radical views, but it can also be said that most non-Muslims do not share Prosser’s views.

Muslims are not a protected species and nor should they be. In my book no one is above receiving such ill considered comment. Freedom of expression should be preserved and encouraged. We can as individuals decide how we view those comments.

Green co-leader Russel Norman moved a motion without debate noting that Parliament affirm that all New Zealanders regardless of race or religion should be treated the same before the law and in society. It was passed unanimously.

Excellent. Good-bye Maori seats, endless treaty claims, constitutional reviews stacked with racists, 1000’s of pieces of law that have differing provisions based on ethnicity.

Kea

Green co-leader Russel Norman moved a motion without debate noting that Parliament affirm that all New Zealanders regardless of race or religion should be treated the same before the law and in society. It was passed unanimously.

I am not surprised the motion was moved without debate.

It has been the law for a considerable time. It is nothing new and he is just grandstanding. I wonder why he chose this time to raise his not-so-novel idea? I would have thought, (given our tiny Muslim population) that a better time would have been when Maori academics suggested banning Europeans from immigrating to NZ.

graham

Kea at 12:40.

Muslims are protected in New Zealand, at least in one regard. See my comment at 12:34. A judge allowed screens to be used in court to ensure that only the judge, counsel and female court staff were able to observe a Muslim witness’ face, when they objected to removing their burqa. I imagine that is now a legal precedent.

Kea at 12.40 pm – fair comment, but I take a slightly different view on that.

Bigots (or anyone) shouldn’t feel they should keep their thoughts to themselves.

But when we do choose to speak we all should consider whether our words could have an awful impact. And we could also consider how our words may impact on ourselves – a lesson Prosser may have just learnt.

Paulus

Regarding the comments re Mormons and Scientologists – they do not go round trying to kill anybody, including themselves, as some Moslems do regularly.
These Moslems do not care who gets killed or hurt.
To be a Moslem is a way of life, not a religion.

The ‘Like’ count on Scott’s comment at 11.44 am looks way out of synch with the rest of the karma here. It’s possible he may have had a big bunch of like minded people agreeing with him quickly but it seems to be way out of step with the rest of the like/unlike karma patterns.

It may be instinctive but it’s not rational. If a tiny proportion of a certain group of beings behaves in a way that is different from the rest of the group, then it is irrational to expect the majority of the group to behave in the same way.

Much depends on the extent to which Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, nontheists or any other religious or secular ethical alternative philosophy intend to respect the ground rules of liberal democratic conduct. There are indeed many liberal Muslims who make a distinction between their religious observance and moral value framework and what pertains within the secular/non-Muslim world, just as there are many liberal Christians who do as well. The problem is fundamentalists, of all shapes, sizes, ethnicities and frameworks, who want to compell others to follow their sectarian or partisan dogmas instead of respecting values like tolerance, diversity, free speech, religious freedom and freedom from religious compulsion, faith/state seperation etc. Not doing so results in pathologies like Stalinism or Putinism, Milosevic’s Serbia, Ahmadinejad’s Iran, al Qaeda, Iraq’s Mahdi Army and right-wing Hindu militia in India, as well as the western Christian Right.

mikemikemikemike

Kea

But when we do choose to speak we all should consider whether our words could have an awful impact. And we could also consider how our words may impact on ourselves – a lesson Prosser may have just learnt.

Pete George, Posser has probably learnt a lesson, but a lesson he may have not learnt had he kept his remarks to himself.

barry

howdarethey at 12:09 pm

Oh -Im not the only one who thinks the Haka is the root of maori violence. Its been recently banned at youth rugby matches due to its encouragement of violence …”Under-13 boys playing in the Roller Mills rugby tournament in Cambridge next month have been barred from performing pre-match haka because of fears they lead to violence and intimidation”….

and a rotorua woman has been pushing within maori to have the practice stopped because her research shows that the haka is a cause of violence in maopridom (and If i could remember her name Id post it because she deserves a medal)

It comes back to the same problem that started the Prosser issue – should all who belong to a religion be blamed and targeted due to the evil actions of some?

No.

But every time I see someone quicker to talk about “islamophobia” rather than the only too real problem of islamic violence, I see someone who is on the attack against external criticism when he should be distancing himself from the evil actions of others within his religion.

Contrast this with the christian response when an abortionist is killed. While many may refuse to grieve the abortionist, the condemnation of the murder and their extremeist group is overwhemling.

Stuart

Re: Pete

You are right in some ways but I would argue that the difference is in numbers. Christianity teaches some horrible things if taken literally, Catholics have done bombings and Christians have murdered abortion doctors, but so few members of those religions commit those crimes that it doesn’t warrant as extensive opposition as Islam does.

On the other hand, the point about child abuse is very good. There is no where near enough opposition to child abuse from within the church, and it is so widespread that more really should be done. But that then comes back to my original argument, if the church is not doing enough to stop child abuse and bring the paedophiles to justice, then society as a whole must fight it and oppose it, just as we are.

Most priests would have never dreamed of harming the children under their care, however it seems acceptable for the media and public to bash the catholic church as a whole for this, primarily as they have not done enough to oppose it, they have ignored it.

kowtow

There are hundreds of thousands of Christian Arabs that this would effect and perhaps 10 million Egyptian Copts. Arabs were Christian before they were Muslim.

Strange how there are so few Christians left in their traditional homelands,oh yes that’s because the Muslims are the real bigots who have cleared the Middle East of so many ethnic and religious minorities that it amounts to a genocide.

Is it bigotry to oppose genocide and the destruction of one’s own culture,race or religion.

No it’s not and people on the front line,like in Nigeria or Serbia well know this.

History has shown us how tolerant the Muslim is. Look at what was Asia Minor (Turkey) where have all the indigenous gone? And now our all knowing elites want to welcome 70 million Turks into the EU! Madness.

I consider this strange as I have never met you and harbour no ill will toward you. I am certain that if I walked past you on the street your suspicions would not be raised. If you were a customer in my shop I am certain you would not suspect that I pose your family any risk.

For you see, I am Muslim, I am 30, and I am also white.

Throw in the fact that I am an American expatriate – accent and all – and I possess quite the subterfuge. After all, I could sit next to you on a flight, our arms negotiating the armrest for space, and you would think nothing of it. And yet if between us the subject of religion arose, my reply would disable you with fear.

Or so your column would lead me to believe.

I am writing an open letter to you out of sympathy, respect, and the desire for understanding. I do not write this so publicly in order to give your opinions greater status than they deserve.

Instead, I hope to circumvent your vitriol from tainting the views of other people who, through lack of personal experience with the Muslim community, may be susceptible to your very limited and ignorant view of our religion and families.

I will start by, ironically, providing you with some defence. It is absolutely your right to speak your mind freely with whatever opinions you so wish. That is one of the great liberties of this nation.

But let me be clear: speaking your mind is your right as a private citizen. As a Member of Parliament, you are a public servant, and your public opinions need to be more carefully delivered. You must be aware that the words of MPs are granted greater political legitimacy than those of private citizens.

It is frightening when someone with so much power to sway the opinions of others is so cavalier in his delivery. We entrust MPs to make defensible, rational, and sympathetic judgments in pursuit of the common good. Counter to this, your words seek to generate divisiveness by fostering an indefensible ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality.

Do you actually believe Muslims are so different to you that we should be trusted less than any other human being? Wherefore this presumption that those who commit terrible crimes in the name of Islam are actually considered heroes or true Muslims by the rest of us? Are we really so homologous to you? Woe to the Sikh or Hindu who you might accidentally not recognise for a Muslim in your eagerness to incite fear, all the while I, the unrecognisable white Muslim, sits next to you.

For you see, if the subject of religion is never broached between us, you will feel safer the entire trip knowing you sit next to a safe and reliable Pakeha. Let me assure you, I want that plane to land safely just as much as you do. I have family and friends who I want to be around for a good long time, and so do they.

The only reason I can think that you would harbour such ill-sentiment is that you have very little first-hand experience with Muslims. I can relate. I was not born into a Muslim family. However, with age I came to recognise my beliefs were congruent with Islam. That seemed a bit of a scary prospect, as I am sure you can appreciate that there is a great deal of Islamophobia in the United States, as well.

Once I actually met some Kiwi Muslims, I quickly realised my presumptions were entirely inaccurate. Muslim culture is not some monolithic fiction. Muslims are just like the majority of Kiwis: we love our summer barbecues, we avidly follow the All Blacks’ domination of rugby, we wear jandals, we buy fush n’ chups down the road. You see, Muslims come from all different backgrounds. I was born in the US and descend from Irish stock. My wife was born in Fiji, and her Indian ancestors were relocated during the British slave trade. Many Kiwi Muslims are from India, the Middle East, east Africa, Indonesia, and Malaysia. We have all come here to share in what it means to be Kiwi. Between us we have a similar pathway to God, but we also respect that every non-Muslim is on their own pathway to God.

Your family and my family, we are each equally Kiwi, despite the fact that we may worship differently. We are equal to you in many other ways: my wife and I both happily pay the highest tax rate, our business creates revenue and employment for many New Zealanders, and our education benefits the New Zealand economy. We are even socially and politically active (gasp!).

If you think supporting terror is somehow intrinsic to Islam, or is somehow an inevitability of our religion, ask anyone in the Muslim community here: no one supports any act of violence or terror against any other living being, human or animal. That is what we call haram in Islam, which means “forbidden by God”. We have no support for terrorists who do such horrible things, and we cannot understand how they can call themselves Muslims. Their actions are entirely incompatible with Islam.

In order to establish better communication on this issue, my wife and I would like to invite you to dinner at our place the next time you are in Auckland. We would like to hear your story, and we would like to share ours. I believe that if you would grant us the pleasure of your company, it will give you a much more enlightened perspective on Muslims and Islam in general. I will leave my contact details with the editor if you wish to make good on our offer.

Two enemies who wish
to be your friends,
Jason (Naveed) Kennedy and
Khayreyah Wahaab

Alan Wilkinson

Apart from simply wrong, this blog is rather stupid.

Webster – bigotry: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Nothing there about a distinction between your view of, say, a religion and how you treat members of it. No distinction between whether the views are justified or not – intolerance and hatred of any group is sufficient to qualify.

On that basis and definition Prosser was not bigoted since he did not indicate hatred of all Muslims, merely intolerance of them for the security costs a minority of them have imposed on the whole world.

“You can not defend what he said and not be a bigot. It really is as simple as that.”

Stupid tosh. You can defend him without being in the least bigoted from misinterpretation and from those deliberately ignoring the underlying issues he was really raising though in a provocative manner. I thought DPF had more brains than that sort of nonsense illustrates.

I disagree 100% with Prosser wanting to ban young Muslim males from flights however I agree with and support those who have already raised the issue of common sense profiling rather than the one size fits all approach we have now.

Both in NZ and internationally I have been subject to OTT security As a WASP I find that offence and totally unnecessary giving my profile does not and has never been that of a modern day terrorist.

I also find it offensive seeing elderly white men and women subject to offensive and OTT security for no good reason other than the politically correct and culturally stupid idea that EVERYONE IS A POTENTIAL BOMBER SO WE HAVE TO TREAT THEM AS SUCH

This is bullshit and the pollies and the civil servants and the air port and airline authorities all know this but they are bigoted in not facing up to the facts and the truth and saying the blinding obvious that

80 plus white men and women are an almost zero terrorist risk and should be treated as such.

These are the bigots who blindly and willfully treat all the same because they lask the guts to tell it like it is

I repeat Prosser was wrong wrong wrong in his calling for a ban but there is bigotry on the part of those in authority that needs to be exposed and dealt to.

Tom Jackson

Now when it comes to Islam, I am someone who has written at length about the flaws in this religion. It has a high proportion of extremists compared to other religions. It has no ability to modernise, and no central authority (the two are linked).

One might have said the same about the religion of the Franks in the 8th and 9th century, given that they were a bunch of violent, misogynistic, unhygienic, and largely illiterate barbarians. Some of their neighbours in Muslim Al Andalus no doubt had such an opinion of them, and it would have been false. For a long time it was the Christian world that was barbaric and backward, and Islamic civilization which was the glory of the world. Next time you drink alcohol, ponder algebra or an algorithm, think about that. There’s a reason that our scientific words come from Greek, Latin and Arabic.

It’s pointless to talk about the flaws in a religion. Every religion needs to be interpreted, and the interpretation reflects the interpreter. Islam as practiced by a western educated Malaysian businessman is quite different from Islam as practiced by some tribal Afghan boy buggerer. Similarly, Christianity tends to reflect the tendencies, backgrounds and preoccupations of its various practitioners.

Bob R

***It may be instinctive but it’s not rational. If a tiny proportion of a certain group of beings behaves in a way that is different from the rest of the group, then it is irrational to expect the majority of the group to behave in the same way.***

@ Scott Chris,

Depends if you mean expecting all of group A to behave in a certain manner or applying statistical discrimination based on greater likelihood (eg. young men paying higher car insurance premiums, airlines preventing males from sitting next to unaccompanied children etc).

To put it simply I expect my employees Pollies and civil servant to enact common sense laws and regulations as regards airport and airline security NOT have a one size fits all and deal with the issues in the open rather than hiding behind their bigoted rules and regulations.
Profiling is a standard and recognised policing method. It has been around for the past several decades and used to effect around the policing world.

I expect profiling to be used at airports. It isnt and it never has been.

rangitoto

“Green co-leader Russel Norman moved a motion without debate noting that Parliament affirm that all New Zealanders regardless of race or religion should be treated the same before the law and in society. It was passed unanimously.”

Interesting that the Greens, Labour and Mana now agree with Don Brash.

Harriet

“……Anyone who proposes any sort of oppressive policy or law based on a group characteristic is bigoted – consciously or unconsciously……”

All I ever did was list – WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE MUSLIM % OF A GENERAL POPULATION -ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD- EXCEEDS 2%.

IT’s all RECORDED in the Metropolitan Police Head Quarters in Scotland Yard, NSW Police HQ in Parramatta Sydney, The Gendarmes Head Quarters in Paris, The Polize in Germany etc etc etc.

And as we all know about Policing -they MANAGE risk!

Now tell me DPF why Police around the world should refrain from their biggoted practice of setting up ‘lock down areas’ -A LAW IN MOST COUNTRIES- when only SOME Muslims[your group charachteristic] ‘get out of hand’ in any given area?

Don’t bother………it’s called……PUBLIC SAFETY!

As I said to Pete George yesterday “Why deny what is happening in Europe Pete………only you would wait to see evidence of militant Islam happening in NZ before you done anything about it.”

As Mark Steyn said “Through ignorance & political correctness, the veil is decending over all of us!”

BTW. I don’t take offence to demerit points……….nor do they terrorise me. just sayin. 😎

Tom Jackson

Yes, but crunch those same numbers on terrorist fatalities caused by people happy to blow themselves to bits at the same time, you come out with an answer of 100% Islamic.

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam would not doubt be surprised to find themselves labelled as Muslims. For a long time they were by far the leading group for incidents of suicide terrorism, and in many respects pioneered the technique.

BeaB

Pete George
I listened to parliament and those words were defiinitely part of Norman’s motion – ‘particularly Muslims’. I heard them. Of course someone may have thought better of them and they were removed from Hansard as sometimes happens but the fact remains, everyone voted for the motion as he put it.
I nearly fell off my chair and expected someone to amend it but they were all too busy showing off how righteous they are, just like you. What a shame freedom of speech is no longer a right for all NZers in your book.

BeaB

Paul G. Buchanan

Tom Jackson:

Very good point. If you have not already, I urge you to take a look at Amanda Lennon’s BA Honours thesis from the University of Auckland (in Political Studies, circa 2004-05). It should be available on-line. She examines six groups that use female suicide bombers, divided into combat/non-combat use and secular (marxist) nationalist and religious motivation (the Tamils are one of her case studies). Her results demonstrate that religion, much less personal grievance or revenge (as has been alleged with regard to female Palestinian suicide bombers) is far less a determinant than nationalism or secular ideologies when it comes to the use of this tactic.

More broadly, Robert Pape’s work on suicide bombers is worth reading as well, although his angle on the issue is different and he does not have the scope and depth that the Lennon thesis exhibits.

Harriet

Bigotry and racism is endemic in all cultures and races It is a peculiarity of “our” culture that those publishing extreme thoughts about other cultures are flogged in the media for it.. A point well made David all the same.
I hope this does not mean that we will no longer be able to discuss the very real evil that is Gingas.
Or have you stopped that since your domestic arrangements changed?

[DPF: the shame – I am now living with a ginga. And the hellish offspawn]

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thanks to the House. I move, That this House affirm that all New Zealanders regardless of their religious faith or ethnicity should be treated equally before the law, and that the rights and dignity of all people—in particular, of Muslims—should be upheld, and that the House acknowledge the responsibility of all New Zealanders to care for one another, to honour the sanctity of each and every one of us, and to act with justice, equity, and respect in all that we say and we do.

Motion agreed to.

That emphasises that Muslims were included, presumably Parliament’s way of making a statement that Prosser’s comments were not in any way representative of Parliament.

And wasn’t Prosser in Parliament yesterday? If he was he must have also voted for the motion.

But it doesn’t try to treat Muslims more equally than anyone else. Are you offended because they were specifically mentioned?

I guess the first step would be for someone to create a work of art like that. Then submitting it to Te Papa to see if they would consider it suitable for exhibition, I presume they don’t show everything anyone puts forward.

Are you going to try? I’d suggest something more original though, more likely to be considered.

You could try the billboard approach – for example, try one outside your church that says something like “Our lot rules, Muslims suck”. You might have to see if your vicar/priest/minister/pastor is as bigoted as you and approves first though.